Dear heavens. Not only would that be utterly ridiculous, but it would require a crazy amount of players to preplan the whole thing. Maybe we just need to get more people on the forums

Anyway. If the sub empire here Happens, as I would like it to. I don't want to do it half-donkey'd I don't even have to be the leader. I would completely happy being a sub leader, or even a regular player in any of the alliances. I'm mostly trying to express my interest in the idea, and see who else wants to do the same thing.
Like I said, a good 18 players would be a solid acceptable foundation.

9 for the main alliance. We don't want to leave the core vulnerable. We must focus our strength to attract attention and create a desire for the randoms in the world to be under our flag. Make it COOL to be in our club

3 for each sub to begin. The last thing we want to do is leave a talented dedicated mate off stranded alone with a bunch of inactive nobodies. Each sub needs a core of at least 3 to kindle the fire of a new powerful alliance and teach the newbies HOW we play. The interaction between the triad core of each sub must be a microcosm of the interaction between the alliance as a whole. That small model will be the real foundation of this whole thing.

If we have less than 3 subs to start off with it won't be a sub empire so there would be no point. Furthermore, I don't want to start creating new subs willy nilly in the game. That'll just lead to everything spiraling out of our control. I was actually just the leader of one of PHE's sub alliances in E4 and I had never had any contact with ANY of the other Phil's Elite Alliances, yet all of them totally ignored me as a possible conquer. It was a ridiculous way to play and not something I want to repeat.

The 4 alliances, minus the primary must always have room to expand. Once subs 2,3, and 4 have 9 members each, a new fifth alliance should be formed with great care.

Other rules.
Never accept a member who does not play with some regularity
Never accept a member who will not play respectfully and honorably... at least while playing under our flag.
Never Break a promise.
Follow orders
Always accept a player willing to put in the effort and learn something
As an alliance we should decide on a total member cap, and abide by that number


Anyway... those are my thoughts on the project for now. I would like to bring a lot of players together on this one, from many different playing styles and worlds. Then maybe we can split up and fight it out the following era.

Regardless of the outcome, this can only be a one off. There are too many ways to play and too many experiences to be had for any of us to fall into a rut.

Sub abuse thats just sick man and i like it.

Hahaha. I like the way you think my friend

yay. 18 free conquers, haven. Look how nice our friends are to us.

One country in the world today is purely communist, North Korea. All the others are varying degrees of socialist. No country in the world besides NK is communist all the way through. Show me one and I'll give you a cookie.

We are the Darkside. We already have cookies!!!

But seriously what's your point? From what I'm told America isn't a pure Democracy either. Socialism or Communism, Republic or Democracy... Regardless of the purity of either in modern form, the thesis still stands.

well, my point is several things. Firstly, I don't think many people think pure communism works even in principle only, given a basic consideration of human nature. Secondly, I don't think many countries run under that style of government even today. I could get on, and I'm bored, so let's.

Firstly, the analogy of communists/capitalists would sort of work if you flipped it around, using examples of China's transition from communist->socialist and vietnam and all that stuff, because it's clear that countries' histories have shown that countries leaning towards capitalist rather than communist are less likely to fail. But that's beside the point. The point is that the 'anti-sub activists' argument is being completely missed. It's not that subs aren't "legit", or aren't "a proper strategy", it's just that many people have been justified by previous eras where sub empires have totally wrecked eras in terms of competition, and most of all entertainment, which is the reason why people play this game. Sub empires ruin the game in terms of entertainment because when you put 8 alliances in top 12, if nobody gangs up on it early game and the empire is well run, you're guaranteed a win. People don't play this game to win (they may think they do, but they don't). They play this game to have a good time. I know a lot of people would agree with me when I say I'd rather go out in a blaze fighting rather than sit and build an entire era and win, or constantly fighting something that you can't win. Competition is what drives the game. Slapping 50 people in the game that work together for a 50 person victory kills the game because if worked well, you can't beat it. It makes the game boring. The argument of "Oh, why can't you do it either" is nullified by 1. the fact that there aren't enough people in a single server for 2 serious sub empires, 2. sub empires generally avoid each other, 3. If we did it, you probably wouldn't be able to because there's not enough people, and we don't want to sit around and build for a whole era, even if we do win. This game is a giant waste of time, and the entertainment is what we get out of it. With sub abusers, this game just turns into a giant waste of time. As for the rut comment, I think in many worlds we are already being dominated by sub alliances. We are already in a rut in sub abuse, and the chaotic FFA is just far more fun. As for your previous post about why we should do the sub alliance...Yes, you could probably dominate a server. No, it wouldn't be fun, take a look at eras who've suffered from the plague of sub abuse. No, alliances will still get peeped at you because too many servers are already being run by sub empires. It wouldn't be anything new, it would just be an extension of a plague that's been killing the spirit of BD. No, it wouldn't build community, look at the lack of communication between mo--ALL of the sub empires so far. I really doubt you can fix that. There wouldn't be truly epic wars because you'd just build for first 500 ticks and nobody likes taking out sub empires that early because it puts your own alliance far, far behind. Furthermore, building community can be done far more efficiently through one or two sub alliances in major alliances. A decreased amount of people in a community means more time to get to know everyone and thus a tighter community, so we would build a tighter community without being internationally hated. Extending on that point, for people to progress in the game they'd have to participate in a 'winning' alliance. You would be having a group of 12 people winning all of the eras and preventing the people in the subs from moving up the social ladder of BD. And that's all I can think of in 30 minutes, I'll add more tomorrow. *yawn*

//endrant and notes that the 'return' key isn't being used enough.

//Soz

//Oh and advance congratulations for 100 posts. XD

Is north Korea really communist? I thought Communism was just a dream. Something that never actually happened like a Marxist rebellion. i thought North Korea was just twisted socialism.

North Korea is communist. Everything is owned and controlled (ie, restricted) by government.

owned or restrictions like China's governement that is a blend of socialism and communism.

When it all comes down to it Koreans are only good at Star Craft